Using strong words and accusations to underscore their military build
up, the United States is gearing up to go to war with yet another
country: Iran. Now that with every day passing a war with Iran is
coming closer, all the parties involved are further entrenching
themselves.

It is a war that seemed to be inevitable from the start.
Nobody wants it, except a few. History will show if these few will
get what they are aiming for.

Rethoric and military action by U.S. builds up to war with Iran

'John
Hannah, Vice President Cheney's national security adviser, said during
a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 "the year of
Iran" and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility', writes The Washington Post. The Guardian writes:
'The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount
an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an
attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves
office.' Veteran war reporter John Pilger writes:
'The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on
Iran. [...] I wrote virtually this same article early in 2003; for Iran
now read Iraq then.' Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is threatening the U.S. in the event of an attack and Iran is drafting a shadow budget:
'"We are preparing a shadow budget based on the oil price of under $30
per barrel in case an extraordinary incident happens on the
international arena"'. Perhaps due to the anticipated consequences that
an attack on Iran could have on the world oil market, the U.S. announced
an effort to add to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: 'the US Energy
Department announced on Jan 23rd, a new push in the spring to fill the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve with initial purchases of 11 million
barrels. "In the spring, that is to say about two months from now, we
will begin the fill.'

The Sunday Telegraph writes:
'The build-up of anti-Iran rhetoric and despatch of two US aircraft
carriers to the region has echoes for some of the run-up to the
invasion of Iraq, prompting suspicions about the intentions of the
remaining hawks within the administration, led by the vice-president,
Dick Cheney.' Le Figaro reported
toward the end January: 'With the sending of the aircraft carrier USS
John C. Stennis and its combat group to join the Dwight D. Eisenhower,
already in the Gulf, the United States now has the ability to conduct
an air offensive 24 hours a day for 30 or 40 days. It can rely on
Bahrain, the huge al-Udaid airbase in Qatar and its operational command
centre, and the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean for supply. The
American satellites have reportedly identified 1,500 targets linked to
the Iranian nuclear weapon programme, distributed over 18 main sites.
[...]'. 'Newsweek has learned that a third carrier will likely follow'; this might be the USS Ronald Reagan that has now entered the area where the USS Stennis is already present as a warning
to Syria and Iran. Another troubling sign comes from insider Brzezinski who
is taking the worst into consideration and is issuing a grave warning.

Brzezinski: false flag operation to provoke war with Iran

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor for President Carter, warned
during testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
that the U.S. is on the eve of war with Iran, possibly provoked by way
of a false flag operation in which an attack on America will be blamed
on Iran: 'If the United States continues to be bogged down in a
protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this
downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with
much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a
military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the
benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the
failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the
U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action
against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and
deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
and Pakistan.'

Brzezinski knows what he's talking about. It was he who in the 1970's lured the Soviet Union into the 'Afghan trap'
that he had laid. As a result of U.S. support for the Mujahedeen, the
Soviets were seduced into invading Afghanistan: 'The day that the
Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We
now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.' It's
now the view in Washington that these Islamic fundamenalists (among
them bin Laden and the Taliban) are the ones who ultimately turned
against the U.S. Without laboring the point too much, the question
remains as to what degree this is in fact the case, and as to how
successful they've been. After all, it is unproven that the attacks
on 9/11 were in fact carried out at the behest of Osama bin Laden, and
there is overwhelming evidence that elements within the
U.S. organized and carried out the attacks themselves. It looks like
this same scenario was implemented during the attacks in London on 7/7.

Brzezinksi knows all too well how, in times of conflict, all possible
means are employed to achieve the goal. In his testimony before the
Senate, he describes the lies and deceit during the run-up to the Iraq
war, and warns us to be alert for subversive measures that could be
employed to force a new war - this time with Iran. Ever since part 1 of
this DeepJournal series on Iran, the writing has been on the wall that
this war is going to become a reality. It's remarkable that an insider
like Brzezinski offers such an insightful view into the realm in which
these kinds of important issues are decided and orchestrated. It is an
ominous sign. It has been largely ignored not only by the Dutch press, but also by the American
press. This is a bad deal because it's the agenda as set forth by the
mass media that in large part determines what is and is not deemed
relevant and in turn incites our representatives to action. Without the
major media to get the ball rolling, these kinds of crucial warnings
will go unheard, and the representatives in Congress will continue to
chase after the whim of the day.

In so far as how a war with
Iran could come to pass, Brzezinski said to the Senators: 'It could
even be in some fashion provoked'. And: 'If one is of the view that one
is dealing with an implacable enemy that has to be removed, that course
of action may under certain circumstances be appealing. I'm afraid that
if this situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, and if Iran is
perceived as in some fashion involved or responsible, or a potential
beneficiary thereof, that temptation could arise'. The temptation that
he is alluding to is the provoking of the enemy in order to force a
pre-planned war. In order to illustrate this scenario with Iran, he
quoted a newspaper article covering the run-up to the war with Iraq:
'"I'll just read you what this memo
allegedly says, according to the New York Times: 'The memo states that
the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no
unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq [this is two months
before the war]. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before
the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a
confrontation.'

U.S. provokes Iran in order to force war

One of these provocations may have been the recent kidnapping of the Iranian diplomat Jalal Sharafi by
'four Iraqis, who wore military uniforms and carried military
identification cards, [they] were "not under the Ministry of Defense
control, they were directly connected to the American control," said an
Iranian Embassy official who spoke on condition of anonymity'. A better
known example is the arrest of five Iranians 'in the process
of being certified as diplomats' in Irbil, Northern Iraq. Another such
potential provocation took place ten days later on January 20th in
Karbala, when five American soldiers were murdered by men in
'American-style uniforms and weapons'. Iran is being openly suspected
of being behind these acts: 'Tying Iran to the deadly attack could be
helpful to the Bush administration, which has been engaged in an
escalating war of words with Iran', writes
The New York Times. But it appears from the same article that 'the
attackers had carried forged American identity cards and American-style
M-4 rifles and had thrown stun grenades of a kind used only by American
forces here' and that when they fled they made use of 'at least five
sport utility vehicles [and] advanced devices to monitor police
communications and avoid the roads where the police were searching;
what has caught the attention of investigators is the way the convoy of
S.U.V.'s was able to give the impression that it was American and slip
through Iraqi checkpoints unchallenged. [...] "We've got to be very
careful as to who we define as our allies, and who we trust and who we
don't," the military official said. "Was the governor involved? Were
the Iraqi police that were on guard complicit or just incompetent?"'
But let's not forget this question either: Were either the Americans or
the British involved in this? Thanks to the Sunday Times we know
that in the Greene Zone in Baghdad the British Joint Support Group
(JSG) is active as a branch of the Task Force Black, alongside the SAS
and the American Delta Force. The JSG is specialized in infiltration
and deceptive strikes. The question is how much room they are afforded
with which to interpet their task. 'President Bush last fall secretly
authorized the killing or capture of Iranian intelligence operatives or
Revolutionary Guard members operating in Iraq', writes The Washington Post. Meanwhile Defense Secretary Robert Gates has his doubts
about Iranian involvement in the murders in Karbala: 'I haven't seen
anything subsequent to that, to the effect that what I've seen is very
ambiguous and does not provide any conclusive proof at this point.'.

Military actions, pin-pricks and other provocations by the
U.S. give the impression that they are trying to work Iran's nerves in
the hope that it will eventually draw a response from the Iranians. 'At
least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers
secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as
provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America]
would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the
administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and
Persian Gulf Affairs', writes Newsweek. The L.A. Times sees
a 'heightened role of U.S. air power in the volatile region'. [...]
"Air power plays major roles, and one of those is as a deterrent,
whether it be in border control, air sovereignty or something more
kinetic," said the senior Pentagon official, using a term that refers
to offensive military action.' The Sunday Telegraph writes:
'The US has also increased flights of unmanned spy planes over the
border corridor between Iraq and Iran, to track movements across the
frontier to back up its claims about Teheran's behaviour. The drones
were being flown into Iran from bases in Iraq to maintain a 24-hour
check on a corridor running along "much" of the Iranian side of the
border, an American intelligence officer told this newspaper.' '"I see
three possibilities," explains an American observer based in Baghdad.
"Either the White House is engaged in an aggressive strategy of
containment, or it is punching in the dark, or it has set out on a new
war." James Dobbins, director of the International Security and Defence
Policy Centre at the Rand Corporation, feels, "It is not necessary to
choose between these options: a combination of the three" could explain
the current American gestures', writes Le Figaro.

American arguments against Iran don't hold water

Up until now the American actions appear to have been relatively
ineffective at getting Iran to back down. And these actions would not
have been necessary had the U.S. engaged in negotiations offered by
Iran. Read more about this in part 13 of this series under the headline
U.S. rejects offers for peace negotiations. 'Powell, for one, thinks
Bush simply wasn't prepared to deal with a regime he thought should not
be in power. As secretary of State he met fierce resistance to any
diplomatic overtures to Iran and its ally Syria. "My position in the
remaining year and a half was that we ought to find ways to restart
talks with Iran," he says of the end of his term. "But there was a
reluctance on the part of the president to do that"', reads Newsweek. 'The Guardian writes:
'Afshin Molavi, a fellow of the New America Foundation, said: "To argue
diplomacy has not worked is false because it has not been tried.
Post-90s and through to today, when Iran has been ready to dance, the
US refused, and when the US has been ready to dance, Iran has refused.
We are at a stage where Iran is ready to walk across the dance floor
and the US is looking away."'

The American actions would also
tot have been necessary had there been more facts to report that would
underscore the danger of Iran, especially in Iraq. But those facts
aren't there. '[The] case against Iran is being built on insinuation,
accusation and misinformation. Despite the stories that fill the news,
we have yet to see any evidence that Iran poses a real and imminent
threat to any nation, least of all the US or the UK', writes professor
Abbas Edalat in his article Answering the Charges Against Iran. The headlines today say that Iran is to be held accountable for 170 killed Americans in Iraq, but Newsweek writes
about the presented evidence: 'But if their job was to provide proof of
Tehran's involvement in Iraq's bloodshed, they're unlikely to convince
the doubters with what was shown Sunday.' 'U.S. can't prove Iran link
to Iraq strife - Despite pledges to show evidence, officials have
repeatedly put off presenting their case, headlines
the L.A. Times at the beginning of this month. The most important
argument, that Iran is well on its way to producing an atomic bomb, appears
to be untenable according to The International Institute for Strategic
Studies (IISS). But the somewhat less relevant argument is unprovable
as well: 'Administration officials have long complained that Iran was
supplying Shiite Muslim militants with lethal explosives and other
materiel used to kill U.S. military personnel. But despite several
pledges to make the evidence public, the administration has twice
postponed the release', writes the L.A. Times. That also appears
to be the case from a new 'National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq
[,...] representing the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intel agencies'.
The appearance
by then Secretary of State Powell at the UN is still a fresh memory, as
witnessed by the reluctance to step forward with burdensome 'facts'.
For the rest the build up to the build up to the coming war with Iran
looks identical to the one against Iraq: '"It is absolutely parallel,"
says Philip Giraldi, a former C.I.A. counterterrorism specialist.
"They're using the same dance stepsâ€”demonize the bad guys, the pretext
of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq
redux."', writes Vanity Fair. Former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer writes:
'The "new strategy" does not follow the advice of the Baker-Hamilton
report, but harks back to the disastrous strategy of the neocons. Iran
is now in the superpower's sights, and the U.S. approach brings to mind
the preparatory phase of the Iraq war - down to the last detail.'

Even though Iran has wisely refrained from a military reaction to the repeated American challenges, the rhetoric
has not calmed down. Even though the Western press has exaggerated
statements by Iranian President Ahmadinejad in ways he never intended,
as explained in the most recent installment of this series by
DeepJournal, Iran continues to toot its own horn. But according to The
Observer, unjustly so: 'Boasts of a nuclear programme are just
propaganda, say insiders'. In reading the article
under this headline it becomes clear that Iran's nuclear program is in
a bad shape: 'Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to
nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace - in particular
by an increasingly bellicose Israel and its closest ally, the US - a
number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian
programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and
lacks the materials for industrial-scale production'.

Economy Iran is in a bad shape - will ration gasoline

When one thinks of Iran one thinks of a land floating on a sea of oil;
scarcity and energy shortages are just about the last terms that come
to mind. Yet upon further investigation into Iran's economic situation,
these are words that figure prominently. According to
an analysis by the National Academy of Sciences, Iran's oil revenue
($50 billion annually) could be cut in half within five years and be
completely dried up by 2015. '[The] country could be destabilized by
declining oil exports, hostility to foreign investment to develop new
oil resources and poor state planning', according to the Academy.
'Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Johns Hopkins University, said
in the report and in an interview: '[There] could be merit to Iran's
assertion that it needs nuclear power for civilian purposes "as badly
as it claims." He said oil production is declining and both gas and oil
are being sold domestically at highly subsidized rates. At the same
time, Iran is neglecting to reinvest in its oil production.' The LA
Times writes
: '[...] Iran's aging oil fields [...] have never fully recovered from
damage inflicted during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s'. Stern sees 'a
picture of an industry in collapse'.

It's not only oil production that finds itself in
such bad shape - the production of gasoline is also in a terrible
state. The country has hardly any refineries that can produce fuel;
beginning with the start of the Iranian new year, March 21st, gasoline
is going to be rationed so as to cut down on gasoline imports. Not only is 40% of Iran's total gasoline usage made up of imports - 60% [PDF] of which comes from the Swiss firm Vitol, headquartered in Rotterdam - but at the same time it's so heavily subsidized that a liter costs only $.09 cents. These and other subsidies have a total worth of about 16% [PDF] of GDP, 'or the cost of providing 8.7 million Iranians a job at a monthly wage of $150 [...]', writes
[PDF] Atta Tarki of the Swedish thinktank Captus. '"And the nub of the
problem is that if you were to cut the subsidies, I think there would
be riots in the streets"', says 'Hossein Askari, professor of international business at George Washington University.' The LA Times writes
that 'the country has one of the most extensive residential heating
infrastructures in the world, with homes in the most remote villages
warmed toastily with cheap natural gas.' While Iran is anxious to
attract investors and developers of oil and gas fields, the U.S. is
stepping up the pressure on these companies. In an article about the
consequences of that pressure, Kim Murphy of the L.A. Times describes
how banks and oil companies are turning away from Iran en masse. A
result of this is that the country is not in adequate shape to utilize
its own natural resources, and because of this is even more inclined to
seek out alternatives. Like nuclear energy.

In a clear and incisive article, the former assistant professor
from the University of Oslo Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar explains things are not
looking good for Iran: 'As inflation is rapidly approaching critical
levels, economists and politicians have began to sound the alarms.
There are now open calls for impeachment of several government
ministers and although not openly mentioned, the moderates and some
conservatives would like nothing more than impeaching the president
himself.' In his testimony before the Senate committee, Brzezinksi
called Iran 'politically divided, economically and militarily weak'. He
was asked by Senator Biden, chairman of the committee, to elaborate on
this point. Senator Biden [1.55'30"]: 'The question is, if that is
true, and I think we overlook how politically divided it [Iran] is, and
overlook the economically difficulty it is in... We seem to be building
it up like it is twenty feet tall, and that it is the new superpower in
the region. [...] Give your assesment of the present threat that Iran
poses in the region [...].' To which Brzezinski answered [1.58'] that
Iran has a one-dimensional economy that's not doing very well and is
also still isolated. He called the mullahs Iran's past and not Iran's
future. He feels that the goverment is not very popular among younger
people (which make up the largest contingent of the population).

The Dutch in this article has been translated into English by Ben Kearney.

...
Although I agree with you fully on almost every aspect of this article (i.e. failure in Iraq, Middle East Policiy, plotting war on Iran), I would have to disagree with you on your accusation of the hawks in the Bush administration plannin 9/11. In my personal this accusation, normally by the far left, does more damage to their point of view, than it does damage to the far right hawks. It discredits their point of view on Iran & Iraq which is completley justified and makes them look like some far left conspiracy nut.

I would like to add
Daan de Wit is Dutch Journalist and the concept of the Bush administration being culpable in 9-11 is more widely accepted in Europe. If not for their hatchet job of the Terrorism budget and ignoring Osama bin Laden, then for outright planning it.

Labelling anyone who dares to challenge alternative versions of 9-11 a 'conspiracy theorist' is using an Americanism - and one that has been used to dismiss questioning for too long.

A large percentage of the rest of the world thinks there are many problems with the official 9-11 story including leading politicians in Europe. And if I might add - over 50 percent of all Americans and well over that in New York City.

Iran War
Excellent post about the coming war with Iran! It looks like Bush going to bomb, unless Congress stops him. I have no faith that Congress will lift a finger to prevent it. They have some bizarre notion that it would make them look weak.

9-11 conspiracy theory
"and there is overwhelming evidence that elements within the U.S. organized and carried out the attacks themselves"

The author considers the 9-11 conspiracy as part of his analysis, even though it is the only item in this otherwise interesting article which does not provide proper research.

Currently, I am aware of far more overwhelming evidence that it was Bin Laden, not the Bush Administration, that planned and executed 9-11 (Bin Laden, for his part, was happy to agree that he did the deed). If this is the track the author was making, it should be supported with evidence.

To be clear: questioning accepted ideas of 9-11 are fine. But please provide evidence, otherwise it has no merit.

9/11 Press for Truth
The author does provide a link to articles that dispute the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. What else should he do here? This wasn't the focus of his article

Any likely possibility that Bin Laden was involved in the attacks does not in any way mean that the Bush/Cheney team were not involved. They have certainly been involved in a cover up, and I'll leave the linked film above to make that argument. And more evidence of this cover-up has come out since the film's release.

re. '..this accusation, normally by the far left, does more damage to their point of view,..': Many folks on the right are part of the Truth campaign, including former members of the Reagan, Bush I, and even one from the Bush II administration. A partial list of prominent Americans who are questioning the official version of events can be found here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

3 out of 5 of the leading presidential candidates in the 2004 election have called for an investigation into 9/11 that would consider the possibility that it was an inside job. They haven't received any open and honest investigation into that days events.

...
Iran is enriching Uranium with thousands of centrifuges. That is a fact. Iran is the nexus of 85% of the world's Islamic terrorism, that is a fact. Iran is responsible for the deaths of thousands of westerners in the name of a radical religious/political philosophy, that is a fact.

There is no conspiracy, there are just these facts. Blabber on about Iraq all you want, perhaps we should have started someplace else. The FACT remains - Iran must go down.